Licensing data aggregates

(Thomas Kalka) #45

One relative easy solution to this dilemma is not to share data, but only pointers to data.
One would only publish pointers into other services, with a limited set of metadata (coordinates, relation to layers).
The actual data providers would decide on their own, how to publish different parts of this data.

(Jon Richter) #46

There is also quite a few vocabularies supporting a licence tag:

(Michael Maier) #47

Is there a short summary of these TOS? Don’t have time now to read it all^^

(Gualter Barbas Baptista) #48

While I tend to agree with you on this political stance, we are dealing with things here that go beyond the digital sphere and deal with offline-types of privacy and property regulations. This makes things more complex and Transformap needs to be able to address that.

Just take the example of Mundraub: while no one will care if the NSA gets the information on those tree locations, the neigbhor I mapped the apple trees of, while be very mad with me if I don’t get that data out of there, after last year some people from the city came and harvested the tree without permission. So, I simply won’t map those trees if I have no control over it.

On the other hand, I would map much more if I could put this information into a protected commons (not at the reuse level, but at the read level), limiting access to information to [selected] members of my community. Therefore eventually contributing to intensifying the commoning process of landscape architecture and food sovereignty.

As I see, this topic has now two mixed discussions: one about licenses (which is what this thread is named after), and another for authorization, which is a topic recurrently overseen in Transformap, but which was partially grasped here.